The Myth of the "Transparent Society" 200
palegray.net recommends a piece by Bruce Schneier up at Wired. Schneier addresses the central fallacy of the "transparent society" idea promoted by David Brin, and also takes on the flawed arguments that attempt to justify increased government monitoring of citizens. From the article: "If I disclose information to you, your power with respect to me increases. One way to address this power imbalance is for you to similarly disclose information to me. We both have less privacy, but the balance of power is maintained. But this mechanism fails utterly if you and I have different power levels to begin with."
Watching your employees (Score:3, Insightful)
But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
I'm not advocating either side here, just pointing out the logical consequences of the position that we should be able to watch them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also not all that interested in knowing what the local police do. I imagine that watching fully grown men in uniform chug bottles of maple syrup and eat donuts loses it's appeal rather quickly.
Of course 30 years ago I wouldn't have minded having a bit of transparency on Margaret Trudeau
* Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency - similar to the IRS
Re:Watching your employees (Score:5, Insightful)
But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
I'm not advocating either side here, just pointing out the logical consequences of the position that we should be able to watch them."
But those aren't two sides, just one. The OTHER side would claim that no one can ever, without your explicit permission on a case by case basis, record, transcribe, log or photograph anything you do.
For me - government activity should be out in the open and accessible to the citizenry. Private activity should only be disclosed with the permission of the persons involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would Cowboy Neil like it if everyone could see what happens behind the scenes at Slashdot? Because he holds our personal info when we register with Slashdot.
At what point do we cite privacy? Does privacy even exist?
Keep in mind that the Clintons have access to our personal info, but refuse to release their tax records and campaign funding records. A
Yes, employers should be able to watch (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. My employer has purchased a chunk of my time and effort. He should be able to see what I am doing during that time. Inasmuch as I am using his equipment, he should also be able to know what I am doing with that equipment. He should be able to know what project I am working on, what strategy I am taking, what the progress status is, and so on.
If I am in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why you were modded down. Monitoring employees at work is valid and monitoring them at home is not.
That said, one problem is the distinction between on-the-clock and off-the-clock is rapidly deteriorating. Maybe yours is an argument that we should rebuild the wall. But allowing more pervasive monitoring "at work" without rebuilding the wall between work life and home life will make it erode faster.
Only if society is OK with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Watching your employees (Score:5, Insightful)
This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us. Also, our need to 'see what [they] are doing' does not necessarily extend to their personal life, in so far as their personal life does not affect their role as a government agent.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why do so many employers test for illegal drugs, but not legal drugs, and not for intoxication but use?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Watching your employees (Score:5, Insightful)
I think bwthomas hit the nail on the head with this. We should be scrutinizing our politicians and police because we have given them special powers in our society, and that needs to bring with it oversight. In the case of employers and their employees, it's not the employer's place to police what people do in their personal lives, unless there is a direct effect on their work. For example, if you show up for work three sheets to the wind, you're probably about to get a pink slip; doesn't matter what drug you're doing it on. On the other hand, if you like to get drunk on the weekends, and snort coke off of the belly of a prostitute while being fucked in the ass by a donkey; you're a sicko, but as long as there is no one being actually harmed (willing BDSM doesn't count), go for it! Just so long as you arrive at work Monday morning clear and ready to work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just something to keep in mind.
Re:Watching your employees (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent wrote: This is incorrect. It's because they have powers over us.
Exactly. We need transparent government they have power over us and, if unchecked, will oppress us, whether intentionally or not.
We can get transparent government because they govern us only by our consent (which is what we mean by "they work for us"). If we do not demand to know what they are doing, then our consent or lack thereof is meaningless. Anything we allow them to hide, we cannot stop them doing.
The situation with employers is not analogous. Employers rightly demand to know what we are doing on the job (e.g., how did you increase sales 200%? with bribes? how did you lower costs by 80%? with child labor?). When employers want to know what we are doing off the job, they are usually wrong to do so. Our hidden lives cannot systemically oppress the employer; government's hidden actions can easily oppress us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Watching the police (Score:5, Informative)
After all..... if the police have nothing to hide, why should they object to interviews being recorded and the defendant getting a copy of the tape?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And in the UK this was codified by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [wikipedia.org] in 1984 which was a reaction to some pretty extreme cases of police abuse and malpractice [innocent.org.uk] in the 1970s. Like, police knowingly covering up evidence which proved that people in prison with life sentences were innocent. So it's a good thing that now interviews and taped (audio & video) and available to both sides but it only came about through a rare moment of political clarity.
Rich.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, following you home is another issue.
Re:Watching your employees (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, an employer who wants to monitor all employees with cameras at all times is over-stepping their bounds and infringing on basic privacy. However I think most people would agree that there are times when an employer can justifiably record employee actions (with their knowledge, of course). For instance if an employee is assessing millions of dollars worth of diamonds, a record of their actions seems reasonable. One should also note that casino employees are recorded for similar reasons.
Finally, it's worth noting that when properly implemented, such systems serve to protect both the employer and employee. Taking the diamond assessing example again, the cameras not only help the employer employees who are stealing: they also allow an employee to exonerate themselves by using the footage ("they were all accounted for when I left the room").
To summarize: it's not a question of mere "employment," but rather a question of "oversight when people wield power."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was only by watching the video for 8 straight hours that they were able to prove that it was the other person. If it wasn't for the tape my mom probably would have been fired and blacklisted (small town, news travels fast).
Re: (Score:2)
There's no problem someone having information about you if that information is justly their business. It's very reasonable for you to tell your employer it's no of his business if he ask if you dr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us.
That's not the reason at all. The reason is that we're in a contract with the government, that they'll protect us and we'll give up some rights/abilities that we had before (for instance, I can't just beat the shit out of somebody any more for no reason, but now they can't do the same to me). To accomplish this, we've given the government a lot of power, power that could easily be abused. This is different from an employee/employer relationship.
This is closer to a relationship between two corporations,
Re:Watching your employees (Score:4, Interesting)
No it doesn't. Public servants are different than employees in a company. Government workers are given powers that private companies don't have, so they demand greater scrutiny. Most people must work, but they can choose not to work for the government if they don't like being under greater scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does their drug use in their private life affect their work output? In this case, the person is just being hypocritical. Is it your business if I'm a politician who votes/speaks publicly against abortions, but privately has one? Hypocrisy is not illegal, last time I checked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gov't and her employees are in the unique position to abuse their power - it is *SUPPOSED TO BE* different from corporations.
I know, it's hard to tell these days.
Re:Watching your employees (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike the employer-employee relationship, where the person who is hiring has a great deal of power over the person who is hired, the government-citizen relationship gives enormous power to the one that is "hired" over the one doing the hiring, including the power, in certain circumstances, to decide whether you live or die. It's more akin to the relationship you would have with someone you gave your power of attorney to. Sure, you "hired" that person, but in doing so you gave them enormous power over your own affairs, including (in certain circumstances) power to make life or death decisions on your behalf. That sort of relationship demands complete transparency so that you can monitor what that person is doing with the great power you've entrusted them with.
As an ordinary employee, I don't have nearly that kind of power over my employers. If I did, I would expect them to monitor any activity that could directly impact the health of the business, but nothing more. The more power someone (or some entity) has over the overall well-being of another individual (or entity), the more openness must be demanded within that relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
Introduce a standard work contract in which all factors are regulated absolutely bulletproof. A section about the work hours, a section about the amount of paid and unpaid holidays, a section about how, where and when employees will be monitored and how the information gained that way is being used.
I'm sure this would make a lot of things way easi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We should be able to to see what our police are doing and what our congesspeople are doing. Why? Because they work for us. ( If someone from a foreign country claimed the same privelege, we would not take them seriously, right? )
But once you grant that assertion, it follows - for all slashdot readers who are not self-employed - that your employer should be able to watch you.
I'm not advocating either side here, just pointing out the logical consequences of the position that we should be able to watch them.
Whenever someone asks a question and then answers it for you, it's probably not the right answer. The reason that transparency is required with police and other government personnel is not because "they work for us", it's because they are civil servants. They serve all of us, a relationship that is going to be a bit different than your standard employer:employee relationship. Being civil servants, some are granted powers not granted to civilians, and as such those granted power require a higher level of s
Re:Watching your employees (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no real correlation between the power your employer has over you and the power your government has over you. The phrase 'they work for us' is mostly just supposed to be a reminder that the government and politicians are supposed to be subservient to the will of the people, not vice-versa. If you think it literally means that they have the same relationship to you as your manager/boss at your job, then you have not thought about it very hard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There, fixed that for you. Scope is important. Just as I may refuse to tell my employer about things I do outside the scope of my employment, we should accept that the government may refuse to tell us abou
I don't get it... (Score:4, Interesting)
That aside, who says the goal of privacy is to have power over people? If I hit you in the head with a brick and you hit me in the head with a rock, "the balance of power is maintained" but it seems like a suboptimal solution.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...and, as such, runs counter to government as we know it.
I'm not stating my position on the matter, just pointing out the fundamental flaw of trying to have a government and wanting privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that this is entirely backwards to the intent of the US Constitution. The Constitution does not limit the power of government, it grants power to the government. Government power should not be limited by what we say it can't do, but instead it should only have what powers we directly give to it. That is the reason we are in the mess we are with the Bush administration, we have let the definition of what powers the government has be changed.
This was actually one of the primary arguments against the Bill of Rights when it was introduced. The claim was that, by explicitly listing limitations on what the government could do, it would imply that the government could do anything else it wanted to do. Funny thing about that argument, it seems to be bearing out. The compromise was to include the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; which, ideally, state that the list of rights isn't exhaustive and that the Federal Government has no more power than is listed in the Articles of the Constitution. To make life easy:
Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Essentially, the Ninth states that the list isn't exhaustive and that the people have other rights. So, next time someone says to you, "there is no Constitutional Right to Privacy" bitch slap them and show them this amendment. Just because a right is not listed in the constitution, doesn't mean that we do not have it. If you really want to carry that "not in the Constitution" stupidity to its logical extreme, you don't have a Right to Life either. Keep in mind that the oft quoted "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the Constitution anywhere; it's from the Declaration of Independence. A document which was really just a rant to King George III about what an asshole he was, and has no legal standing in the US.
The Tenth Amendment was supposed to also be the stop gap on the Federal Government claiming other powers which were not given to it by the Articles of the Constitution. But this may as well not exist anymore as the US Supreme Court gave Congress a complete end run on it by ruling that intrastate commerce effects interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by the Federal Government. As such, the Federal Government merely needs to show a link between any activity they want to regulate and commerce of some sort, and they can now regulate it.
The US Constitution is not supposed to "limit the power of the government". It is supposed to grant powers to the Federal Government, and they can go get stuffed if they want to do anything else. It is a huge problem that the perception of this has been turned around. The Constitution has stopped being the way in which We the People pass powers to our government and become a shield we try to use to defend ourselves from a Federal Government grown out of control. My hope is that we can fix this, and put the Federal Government back in it's box; I worry though, that this can only end badly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you and someone else agree to let the other bash your heads with rocks/bricks/whatever, then maybe the benefit is removal from the gene pool.
"Inevitability" (Score:5, Informative)
However, there are some more interesting arguments in the book. For example consider CCTV systems. Assuming that their installation is inevitable, he argues that we should fight to make the feeds were available to everyone not just the government. This would empower us to watch the government as much as government is watching us. However, the biggest opposition to this would not be from the government, but from citizens themselves who trust the authorities to watch them, but not their neighbors. This was the attitude he was trying to counter in his book.
Re: (Score:2)
Logically speaking, if two entities start on different power levels, it makes no difference if they both have complete privacy, complete disclosure or some measure in between. That original offset still exists. The mechanism does not fail because of the original power offsets, it only fails if the mechanism is applied unequally to both parties.
This unequal application of the mechanism c
Re: (Score:2)
To truly make use of your privat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then even up the power levels. (Score:3, Insightful)
If we are to have a "transarent" society then the citizen should be able to "see" everything that thier government does. Currently in the US not even congree can see what the executive is doing.
The 60s civil rights movement has triumphed, we have equality -- everybody is downtrodden.
It has been stated. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would argue that what you speak of is value created from an artificial scarcity - and scarcity of resources has probably been the primary driving force behind most wars and conquests and their subsequent atrocities.
As an example, let us say that I have knowledge on how to build a stable, robust operating system which far exceeds the capabilities of the current ones. It would be said that the value of t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Another way to look at privacy is from the point of view of property. My information is my property. Handing it over to the authorities is what I'd expect to do in a socialist state.
Cue the inevitable "In Soviet Russia" remark.
Re: (Score:2)
It could happen (Score:3, Funny)
Motives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see through your plot! (Score:3, Funny)
Pink Floyd - Pigs (Score:2)
by the people that you lie to,
so that when they turn their backs on you,
you can stab the knife in.
Other reasons for privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy is necessary, but for
7 years (Score:2)
Re:7 years (Score:5, Insightful)
When they pass respectable laws I'll respect the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, he should have gotten a much longer sentence. But in this case, you should blame the cops, particularly Detective Perino, for screwing up the case. If it had been me deciding every aspect of this case, I'd have given Crespo life with no possibility of parole for 10 years, and Perino 30 days for inappropriate conduct investigating a case plus 10 years for perjury.
Details contradict the conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Details contradict the conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
I still see one possible problem here. Let's say we have the ability to watch/record the police freely and they can watch/record us freely. You might expect that it would be fine, because the surveillance is mutual, but in reality a problem will present itself pretty quickly: The police are an organized group of people with a common agenda and additional powers over normal citizens, and meanwhile you're just one person trying to go about your normal life.
What tends to fall out of situations like that is that the police would develop the means and methods necessary to protect themselves, hide their actions from your surveillance, and sort through all of your misdeeds for prosecution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think the example is the opposite of the point Schneider was trying to make, then I think you misunderstand what Schneider is saying. A relevant quote from the article:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But the point Brin is making is not mutual disclosure per se, but rather that governments already (and will have) ubiquitous monitoring (see for example England's "Safe under the watchful eyes" system), and so citizens need to insist on an equal level of transparency from the government. Which is more or less the same thing that Schneider is arguing for -- more transparency from govern
Re:Details contradict the conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
However, I do believe that his example was indeed poorly chosen. If both the kid and the police had walked away with the recording of the initial conversation, the police would not have had the power to do what it attempted to do during the prosecution: commit perjury with no risk of discovery of said perjury. Instead, what I think Schneier is getting at is that in order to diminish power differences between government officials and regular citizens, government officials need to be subjected to greater scrutiny than regular citizens. In other words, while citizens might be monitored on streets and have their phones tapped, government officials ought to be monitored 24/7 with the feed available in real-time to the public.
This is an obvious exaggeration and fraught with problems (do I really want to see Senator Larry Craig have sex with other men in a bathroom?), but the point is that equal access to similar data is not enough when the different parties start at different power levels. Instead, data access needs to be constructed in such a way that it reduces existing power differences. This requires that the party that starts with less institutional power needs to be able to access more data about the other party.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not the imformation that gives power (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case where the cop asks for your name, knowing your name gives no power in itself - you might have given a false name. it's only when that information can be used that the power is given/lost. When the cop does the PNC lookup, that is when they get power. Likewise, if you ask the cop their name, you have no means to use that information and therefore no power.
Even if you could record the police (which in the UK, you can't) you still have to have a means to use that recording for it to have power. Unless there's a heinous action on it, the media won't be interested. You can put it on youtube - but really, who cares?
Oh, and while we're on the subject. Society != Government.
Society is me, my partner, the people in my road, the queue in Sainsbury's. Govenerment is a group of dehumanised institutions - the two cannot be compared
dear privacy fundamentalists: (Score:2)
i now await your screed announcing this attitude of mine is making way for fascist authoritarianism (rolls eyes)
Re: (Score:2)
The road to fascist authoritarianism begins when government just says, "We're doing something, but we're not going to tell you what or for how long and will only give vague references to why. Just trust us. We k
Not a fallacy. (Score:3, Informative)
Brin doesn't suggest that the transparent society is a good thing; he suggests that it's inevitable so we should figure out which kind is the least offensive and make sure that's the one that happens.
Schneier demonstrates why the transparent society is undesirable, but this is not counter to Brin's claim. Schneier fails to offer argument which counters Brin's view of inevitability.
simplistic (Score:2)
Schneier als
His arguement actually lends more strength.... (Score:2)
I don't particularly like Brin's work, but it's on a personal style level rather than an ideological level. When I read his stuff, I come away feeling like I've been talked down to by a pretentious twit. I don't even think, if I met him in person, that he is like that. It's just that his style of writing rubs me that way.
But, what I've gleaned from standing on the edges and watching others talk about his work is that the idea Brin puts forward in th
Re: (Score:2)
I've met Brin in person. I came away feeling like I'd been talked down to by a pretentious twit. I think he is, in fact, worse in person than in text.
Nonetheless, Brin is still right that there is NO QUESTION that the "more powerful" side WILL have surveillance, and the only question is whether the "less powerful" side will get anything at all, not whether the power ends up equal, or even whether the ratio stays the same. Schneier is completely missing the point.
On the other hand, Brin seems to think t
Protecting the Criminal Enterprise (Score:2, Insightful)
A transparent society where industry and government can spy and know all information about the citizens and consumers would allow government and industry to crush any opposition to the criminal enterprise or status quo.
It is our collective ignorance and current system design tha
Sunlight is the best disinfectant (Score:4, Interesting)
"Fear grows in darkness; if you think there's a bogeyman around, turn on the light."
"The plant that grows in darkness and wilts in the light give forth bitter fruit."
Bruce seems to be missing the point. Technology is giving the common man power to snoop on the powerful and the only defense the powerful have is to hide behind privacy laws and other form of censorship. Imagine if everyone wore devices that recorded everything they saw or heard - police would never be able to abuse their power like the cop Perino tried to do with Crespo. That kids MP3 recording saved his ass - what if everyone used that tech everyday? Privacy would disappear but so would many of the abuses of power that Bruce seems so worried about.
Technology changes the balance of power.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Privacy as defense against prejudice (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet privacy is clearly a conditional right. You have to behave in order to enjoy it. Do bad things and you will lose it. Privacy cannot be a shield defending wrongdoing. That's the basis for police search warrants. The same or worse holds in the civil law sphere -- discovery and depositions are frightening things as some will find out.
With respect to governmental authorities, they operate with many legal privileges and immunities which shield punishment and so permit prejudice on their parts. Privacy becomes even more important in those relatively few (but serious) cases where offices are abused for personal gratification.
More info on "Transparent Society" (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think Bruce Schneier is sort of missing the point; if anything he seems to be advocating the same sort of system as Brin. Brin's general thesis is that with ever-increasing technological capabilities, with cameras becoming ever-smaller and cheaper and networks increasingly ubiquitous, this loss of privacy is sadly inevitable. Given the choice of surveillance being solely the domain of government, or the domain of both the people and the government, the latter is preferable, and also has some interesting side-benefits. Balancing power between people and the government is one of the major benefits.
Marx/Hegel classes versus trickle-down (Score:3, Interesting)
A counter theory says that although a new resouce may appear in one segment of society first (e.g. cellphone internet), demand pushes supply creation to satisfy society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to have a transparent society, and you don't want to be powerless, you need to bloody participate. You need to break down the ultra-specialization that has become so commonplace in modern society, educate yourself about the various sectors that sustain your life and your society, and participate in each of them actively.
Re:I empower you (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy is one of the most fundamental things about being human. If privacy is to become null, the very definition of being human is going to have to change.
Re:I empower you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I empower you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please consider the hypothesis at hand: that in a transparent society all actions are visible. Would mobs still act the same if each member knew that he could be individually held accountable?
Re:I empower you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they don't. This was just about universally assumed to be the case, and most police courses still teach this idea, but a number of recent studies (1990's and up) have shown that only about 25% of a given mob really want to be there. Larger percentages try to move towards the fringes and hang back, but are afraid that if they make a sudden break, the mob will turn on them. If the small percent that organize a mob make good choic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The example given was of cops. Well, in a transparent society, you don't want cops, because everyone is a cop. If you see someone doing something, and you know they shouldn't be doing it, you rally the people around and take action personally.
It's extremely disturbing that you think the best form of law enforcement is the lynch mob.
I think P is reading way too much into GP's words. GP didn't say 'lynch'; he said 'act'. Keep in mind that in this hypothetical situation, GP's actions are also transparent. This gives him a very strong incentive to act reasonably, justly, and proportionately.
He specifically said we don't want cops, but groups of people. If you don't have cops, it's up to the people to act, and while the thought of being watched might have some effect, it's only really going to strongly affect those who are thinking rationally, which is counter to how mobs act.
Mobs are like bell curves. You're going to have a few rational people and a few completely frenzied irrational people, but the center is going to end up going one way or the other. Will they listen to the emotional raving
Re: (Score:2)
Transparency changes that. They now know that they can be held individually responsible. Even if emotion rules, things are different. Now they are afraid of being caught and held responsible for their actions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I think it is fairly certain that Bruce Schneier is smarter than most of the people here, probably including you and certainly including me.
I'll grant that that doesn't preclude him being an idiot as well, but not in this case. It is wise to be a bit skeptical about the possibility of putting a utopian scheme like a transparent so
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We do it at the same time that we're removing taxation laws. It's a re-implementation of the same thing, except you're not insulated from understanding of what's going on, and your contribution isn't abstracted to the point that it can be perverted to a purpose you wouldn't have willingly agreed to.
If you spend a dozen days a month actually working on and with the critical infrastructure that supports you
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To deal with the fact that every person cannot know everything, you should be able to assign your vote to any other individual whom you trust to do a good job, and have their vote carry the weight of yours.
So, you can vote for your mom, your mom can pass your vote and her vote to the town doctor, the town doctor can pass half the towns votes to a clever responsible gu
Re:I empower you with private property (Score:3, Informative)
So when do we pass laws to enforce participation on those that don't give a damn now?
Any practical society must be designed with the majority in mind not the vocal minority. Communism would work too, if everyone did what's good for a communist society.
We need not pass laws forcing people to participate. We only need laws that reward them for participating. That is - as noted - one of the reasons communism has failed: it requires that people be enlightened and altruistic, both knowing what is best for their society and being willing to do it even at cost to themselves. When people are selfish, the whole thing collapses.
A properly constructed society would channel the efforts of the selfish toward doing the benefit of all, so when the selfish person
Re: (Score:2)
That's heretic. I'm going to report this; bloody communist pagans.
Who are you calling a pagan?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Schneier is actially *making* Brin's point (Score:5, Informative)
Brin wants a level playing field, but Schneider's arguing that we should slope the field heavily away from the government. If they have all the guns, we should at least have a monopoly on the data to preserve the balance of power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The more you hide,
The more you lie. --Yes, "Let Go"
We need privacy because we are afraid. We are afraid of what people will think of us/do to us if they know our innermost secrets. We are afraid people will take what we have if they know how to access it. We are afraid that we will lose the respect and love of our friends and family if they know the things that we do/believe/have done that they don't approve of. And therefore, we have passwords on our accounts, we hav